Os 246 municípios de Goiás estão habilitados a participar do cálculo do Valor Anual Total por Aluno (VAAT) para 2027. O resultado foi divulgado pela Portaria Conjunta nº 7, de 14 de outubro de 2026, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nesta sexta-feira (16), e coloca em evidência o trabalho de acompanhamento e orientação técnica desenvolvido pela Federação Goiana de Municípios (FGM) junto às administrações municipais.
A habilitação é uma etapa necessária para que as cidades participem da apuração da complementação da União ao Fundo de Manutenção e Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica (Fundeb). A FGM ressalta, porém, que estar habilitado não garante o recebimento dos recursos. O repasse dependerá do valor do VAAT apurado para cada município e dos critérios nacionais de distribuição.
O procedimento exige regularidade e consistência das informações contábeis, orçamentárias e fiscais referentes a 2025. Entre os dados considerados estão a Matriz de Saldos Contábeis (MSC), transmitida pelo Sistema de Informações Contábeis e Fiscais do Setor Público Brasileiro (Siconfi), e as informações do Relatório Resumido da Execução Orçamentária (RREO), encaminhadas ao Sistema de Informações sobre Orçamentos Públicos em Educação (Siope).
Essas exigências demandam atuação integrada de diferentes setores das prefeituras, incluindo as Secretarias de Educação e Fazenda, as áreas de Finanças e Contabilidade e os órgãos de Controle Interno. Segundo a FGM, a regularidade dos registros permite à União calcular os indicadores utilizados na distribuição dos recursos destinados à educação básica.
A Federação acompanha as regras de financiamento da educação, orienta tecnicamente os gestores e divulga informações para auxiliar as administrações municipais no cumprimento das exigências legais. O objetivo é contribuir para que as prefeituras mantenham os dados atualizados e adotem procedimentos adequados à gestão dos recursos educacionais.
Para receber a complementação-VAAT, o município precisa, além de estar habilitado, apresentar valor apurado abaixo do mínimo nacional estabelecido para o exercício, conforme as regras do Fundeb.
A relação das cidades que efetivamente receberão os recursos em 2027 deverá ser divulgada em portaria até 31 de dezembro de 2026, de acordo com as informações fornecidas pela FGM. Até lá, os gestores municipais devem acompanhar as próximas etapas e verificar os dados específicos de suas administrações.
Para a Federação, a habilitação de todos os municípios goianos demonstra atenção às obrigações que influenciam o financiamento da educação básica. A entidade informou que continuará acompanhando as etapas do Fundeb e orientando as prefeituras sobre a regularidade das informações e o planejamento dos recursos destinados à educação pública municipal.
Na estimativa atualizada para 2026, 42 municípios goianos estão contemplados com previsão de aproximadamente R$ 322,6 milhões em recursos da complementação-VAAT. Os valores constam da Portaria Interministerial MEC/MF nº 11/2026.
O número de municípios beneficiados e os montantes destinados a Goiás em 2027 dependerão da apuração do VAAT e da divulgação dos parâmetros oficiais para o próximo exercício.
The post FGM destaca habilitação dos 246 municípios goianos ao VAAT 2027 appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates running for the House of Representatives and endorsed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani are all but guaranteed to win their general elections this November, but that does not mean the midterm drama is over in New York. In the state's 17th congressional district, which includes the lower Hudson Valley, Democratic challenger Cait Conley, a combat veteran who served on the Biden administration's National Security Council, could unseat incumbent Republican congressman Mike Lawler in one of the most consequential races of the midterms.
The highly contested purple district voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election while reelecting Lawler for his second term. Now, Lawler is attempting to win a third term as support for President Donald Trump wanes ahead of the midterms. As of Friday, The Cook Political Report lists the race, which could determine control of the House, as a toss-up.
If elected, Conley would have far more in common with the "Badass Women" coalition of security state and military veterans than with DSA types (think more Sen. Elissa Slotkin from Michigan than Darializa Avila Chevalier). As Judge Street Journal's Timmy Facciola notes, "Conley's candidacy is testing the viability of a tactful centrism that rebukes left-wing positions like abolishing ICE or restricting weapon shipments to Israel." Lawler is also vying for moderates, pitching himself as "one of the most bipartisan members of Congress" and emphasizing his willingness to break with Trump occasionally while still welcoming Trump's support.
While Lawler and Conley certainly are not pure MAGA acolytes or DSA members, both have leaned into a tech-critical position, much like that of more radical populists like Lina Khan or Steve Bannon, revealing how pervasive anti-tech sentiment has become in mainstream politics.
This tech skepticism was on full display during an October 14 debate, when each candidate made the case for why they were the most equipped to regulate AI, insisting that the industry needs guardrails.
Conley said members of Congress do not want to regulate AI because "they want to look out for their billionaire and trillionaire backers like Elon Musk, who is pouring over $260 million into this midterm election." She then added that Musk backed Lawler in his 2024 race.
Lawler then accused Conley, who previously consulted for Primer AI, of being "the AI candidate for the AI industry."
While Lawler and Conley disagree on specific data center regulations (Conley supports Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's data center moratorium while Lawler supports local zoning control over data centers), neither wants to pitch themselves as an explicitly pro-data center candidate. During the debate, Conley claimed that, "On Mike Lawler's watch there have been five data centers built in Rockland County." Lawler has said that he had no say in the decision to build the data centers, and during the debate, he pointed out that the facilities were built for financial services. Lawler also attempted to attack Conley over data centers, slamming her in an ad for saying "we need data centers." Regardless of the candidates' specific policies on data centers, their attacks on one another demonstrate that cheerleading hyperscale data center development is a political liability. In their district, data center has presumably become a dirty term.
The candidates' tech-skeptical rhetoric did not end with unchecked data center development. After the debate, Reason asked both candidates about their positions on age-verification laws for social media and AI, since such regulations raise significant privacy and censorship concerns by age-gating the internet. Unsurprisingly, both Lawler, who voted for the controversial KIDS Act, and Conley, who has proposed stricter age verification for AI tools, parroted platitudes about why such online safety regulations are necessary to protect children.
"We have watched how social media is literally hurting the mental health of children," Conley told Reason. "And when you talk about the power of AI and what that power could do, we have to regulate this."
Lawler gave a similar response, telling Reason that he respects free speech but that protecting children "is paramount."
This bipartisan consensus over social media regulation has long been brewing in Congress. The mainstream political conversations about AI and data centers, however, are relatively new this midterm election cycle. And it appears both Lawler and Conley have figured out which way Americans' sentiment toward AI is leaning, and they have waged their campaigns accordingly.
The post Nobody Wants To Be the Pro-Tech Candidate in This New York Race That Could Flip the House appeared first on Reason Magazine.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday fired his brand new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, just five days into the job. The story broke right after Trump told reporters that he had asked Zacharia to reconsider whether she wanted to remain in the job after her bumpy first briefing on Monday.
© JIM LO SCALZO (EFE)
MEMO | October 16, 2026
A prominent Israeli rabbi on Friday issued a religious ruling permitting Israeli occupiers to take olives from Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, claiming that harvesting the crop “demonstrates Jewish ownership of the land,” Anadolu reports.
The ruling was issued by Rabbi Dov Lior, one of the most prominent religious authorities among Israeli occupiers in the West Bank, and was published by Israeli Channel 13.
It comes amid escalating occupier violence against Palestinians and their property, particularly farmers during the olive harvest season.
Lior claimed that Palestinians do not own their land, arguing that they had not purchased it from the “people of Israel” or from any Jewish person and describing the land as “stolen property.”
Citing Jewish religious law, he claimed that ownership of land cannot be transferred through theft and that Palestinian land therefore remains the property of the “people of Israel.”
He also argued that Palestinians planting olive trees on their land does not give them ownership rights over either the land or its produce.
Lior claimed Palestinians had already received sufficient compensation for planting the trees by consuming their fruit over previous years, and said both the land and harvest should return to what he called their “rightful owners.”
His ruling was not limited to land near illegal settlements, however, and also permitted occupiers to take olive crops from Palestinian areas farther away.
The ruling comes as attacks on Palestinian farmers during the West Bank olive harvest season have intensified, including assaults, preventing farmers from reaching their land, damaging trees and stealing crops.
Such attacks recur during the olive harvest, which peaks in October each year, while this month has seen an increase in attacks by occupiers against Palestinians and their property.
Palestinian, Israeli and international rights organizations have accused Israeli authorities of failing to stop occupier violence or hold perpetrators accountable despite attacks targeting Palestinians, their homes, farmland, vehicles and other property.
Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian land are considered illegal under international law, while Palestinians maintain their rights to their land and reject attempts to seize it.
Three days of silence ended in London. Volodymyr Zelenskyy used a Financial Times interview to announce that Ukraine would resume strikes on Russian oil refineries, and the message was aimed as much at Washington as was at Moscow.
The ban on refinery strikes is lifted, Zelenskyy declared. “Enough,” he added, in a statement that amounted to an open rejection of the White House moratorium. The timing is notable. Until the trip to London, Kyiv had avoided a direct confrontation with Donald Trump. Only after arriving in the British capital, where political backing for Ukraine remains strongest, did the tone harden. The episode points to a widening split inside the Western bloc. Over the coming month, tension may grow between those pushing for a settlement and those committed to continuing the war.
While politics heats up, the strikes on Ukraine’s rear continue without pause.
Overnight on October 16, Russian drones hit the western regions in a massive attack. In Lutsk, an energy facility was struck, leaving parts of the city without power and halting electric transport. As the blackout spread, residents began stocking water. In Khmelnytskyi, an oil depot was attacked. Kovel reported interruptions to both water and electricity, while in Ternopil a foreign-owned enterprise was hit.
The situation in the capital is worse. According to the Ukrainian outlet Ekonomichna Pravda, three Kyiv thermal power plants – TEC-5, TEC-6, and the Darnytsia plant – have stopped generating electricity. Those facilities provided the bulk of the capital’s power. Media reports say 600,000 people have already left Kyiv, a city that had nearly three million residents before the conflict.
Meanwhile, a technological shift is emerging on the battlefield. Russian forces have begun using Molniya drones fitted with satellite antennas, bearing a logo strikingly similar to that of Bureau 1440. That company develops Rassvet, a Russian low-orbit satellite network widely seen as a counterpart to Elon Musk’s Starlink. Such a network offers jam-resistant control for mid-range strike drones operating 100 to 150 kilometers from the front line. Satellite guidance is also expected to improve the accuracy of long-range Geran drones. If Russia can quickly scale up terminal production, the consequences could be dramatic. Ukraine’s rear could come to resemble the land corridor to Crimea, where roads are effectively blocked by constantly loitering drones.
Kyiv has lifted its own ban on refinery strikes just as its capital loses the ability to keep itself warm and lit. Russia, meanwhile, is building a satellite-guided drone fleet that no foreign company can switch off. Defiance in London is easy to announce. Defiance in a city without power, with roughly one in five residents gone, is far harder to sustain.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK:
MONERO (XMR): 86yfEHs6pkoDEKCxc6MAnQX8cVHmzhYxMVrNuwKgNmqpWK8dDxjgGnK8PtUNJMACbn6xEGxmRauNTHJhUJpg9Mwz8htBBND
BITCOIN (BTC): bc1qgu58lfszcpqu6fd8l98m378wgzugyg9y93lcym
BITCOIN CASH (BCH): qr28d80s5juzv2793k5jrq59xrl5fxd8qg9h3zlkk2
PAYPAL, WESTERN UNION etc: write to info@southfront.press , southfront@list.ru
If you face any problems sending funds to the addresses given above, please contact us: info@southfront.press and southfront@list.ru. Also be aware that many email services such as Hotmail, Yahoo etc. may block correspondence from info@southfront.press and some others put it in spam.
If you want to support SouthFront but have no opportunity to do it via cryptocurrency, please contact us: info@southfront.press and southfront@list.ru.
SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence
NOW hosted at southfront.press
Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.
The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation
Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com
The post “Enough” In London, Darkness In Kyiv — Zelenskyy’s Defiance Meets Reality appeared first on South Front.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the US government is preparing to send troops to Latin America under the pretext of combating drug trafficking in the region.
According to the US publication, 600 troops from the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY, have already begun deploying to the jungles of Panama to conduct exercises alongside the local military.
In addition, it was reported that members of this detachment will participate in operations in other countries in the future: “The troops will eventually train with local forces in Colombia and Honduras, and could also support US Special Operations troops advising militaries conducting raids against accused drug traffickers, the officials said.”
The peoples of the region, alongside anti-imperialist and progressive forces, have long denounced decades of US military intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. Various experts and analysts have shown that “war on drugs” projects have never led to the elimination of these illicit businesses. On the contrary, US military involvement has coincided with an increase in violence, drug production, but most importantly: neoliberal reforms. These reforms involve the dismantling and reduction of the state, the privatization of all possible dimensions of social life, and the destruction of social organizations that oppose neoliberalism.
Historically, this process of material dispossession has been facilitated by an expansion of US military presence, under the pretext of the “war on drugs.”
The report stated: “The deployments and growing headquarters, which have not been previously reported, along with the Pentagon’s recent movement of several MQ-9 Reaper drones from Africa to Colombia and Ecuador, mark the latest widening of the Defense Department’s fight against drug traffickers in the region.”
For several months now, US forces have been participating in intelligence activities and supporting military operations in Ecuador, whose government has entered into agreements with the US to allegedly fight organized crime. However, it was later revealed that these operations didn’t target drug traffickers at all. In at least one instance, The New York Times reported that the US and Ecuador bombed a dairy farm.
This collaboration is part of the new military and geopolitical strategy led by the Trump administration, embodied in the agreement known as “Shield of the Americas.” In recent meetings, several governments have committed to working with the United States so that their militaries can carry out joint operations in Latin American countries.
Regarding the possible itinerary of the soldiers who are expected to arrive in Panama, The New York Times reported: “The soldiers will move first into Panama, where they will take part in jungle training exercises, officials said. From there they will head to Colombia, where they will participate in what officials have called Southern Vanguard, an exercise scheduled to begin later this month. Other rotations will move into Honduras for training with local partners. Some of the troops could be used to provide additional security for US helicopters in the region, which have been providing support for US Special Operations forces.”
For about a year now, the United States has been conducting airstrikes on small boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean that Washington claims are linked to drug trafficking. Over 200 people have been killed in the strikes and the majority of the victims appear to be fishermen from Venezuela, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago, and other island nations. Victims’ families and survivors have vehemently denied any connection to criminal groups.
For its part, the US Embassy in Panama stated that The New York Times report regarding the deployment of several hundred US soldiers to the Caribbean nation is untrue: “The New York Times article alleging the deployment of 600 US soldiers to Panama is categorically false.”
The US Embassy reported that 120 US military personnel are currently participating in a training course in the Panamanian jungle, but that these troops will return to the United States on October 25 and therefore will not undertake the deployment announced by Colombia and Honduras. It did report that other US military personnel will participate in exercises in Peru.
“This is nothing new. The Jungle Operations Training Center has been operating for over a year as a school officially recognized by the US Army. US and Panamanian instructors jointly provide training in survival techniques and jungle operations,” the US Embassy in Panama said in its statement.
The controversy between The New York Times and US diplomatic officials over this report comes amid an evident increase in the US military presence in the region. In addition to operations in the Caribbean and the Pacific, there was the military incursion into Venezuela on January 3, 2026, which resulted in the capture of then-President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, as well as the deaths of more than 100 people in Venezuela. Furthermore, President Trump himself has suggested that he could attack Cuba and any other country if US security is compromised.
“Eu sei que o cerimonial estabeleceu esse rito constitucional de uma sessão solene, mas o meu coração não me permitiria, presidente Hugo Motta e presidente Lula, deixar de convidar uma pessoa para a mesa para representar o povo brasileiro”, disse Alcolumbre.
“Nós precisamos fazer uma homenagem a um grande ser humano, a um grande brasileiro que esteve, nas últimas quatro décadas, lutando por esta conquista”, completou Alcolumbre.
Ainda em 1994, Paulo Paim apresentou o Projeto de Lei 4.653 para reduzir a jornada de trabalho de 44 horas para 40 horas semanais, mas o texto acabou arquivado, assim como outras propostas apresentadas durante os mandatos do político gaúcho.
Nesta sexta, ao conversar com jornalistas, Paim destacou que a emoção de aprovar o fim da escala de seis dias de trabalho por um de descanso, que também reduz a jornada para 40 horas, é parecida com a promulgação da Constituição, em 1988, quando a jornada foi reduzida de 48 para 44 horas semanais.
“Eu me sinto realizado, de lá para cá, da constituinte, eu apresentei dez projetos”, disse, acrescentando que a emenda promulgada hoje “vai melhorar a vida da nossa gente”.
O senador Paulo Paim deixa o Senado no final desta legislatura. Com 76 anos, ele decidiu não disputar nova vaga pelo Rio Grande do Sul na eleição deste ano após mais de 40 anos de vida pública.
O Congresso Nacional promulgou, nesta sexta-feira (16), a Emenda Constitucional 141 de 2026, que põe fim à escala de um dia de descanso para cada seis trabalhados (6x1) e prevê a escala 5x2, com duas folgas por semana, para todos os trabalhadores do Brasil dentro de dois meses.
No caso da redução de 44 horas para 40 horas, ela terá um período de transição mais longo, caindo para 42 horas em 60 dias e para 40 horas daqui a 14 meses, também sem redução salarial.
Nascida a partir de pressão das ruas e atendendo a uma demanda histórica dos trabalhadores e sindicatos, a proposta teve a tramitação concluída na última quarta-feira (14) no Senado, com 75 votos favoráveis contra 1, do ex-vice-presidente e senador Hamilton Mourão (Republicanos-RS).
Apoiada pelo governo, a votação contou com apoio também da oposição, que era contra a PEC e tentava impedir a votação nesta semana. Após a sessão ter sido marcada, no entanto, a oposição liberou a bancada, que votou majoritariamente pelo fim da 6x1.
Belgium plans to deliver 10 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine by the end of 2026, Prime Minister Bart De Wever announced on 16 October, raising the expected number from three amid delays in transferring the aircraft.
The expanded commitment comes as Ukraine faces sustained Russian drone and missile attacks and needs additional combat aircraft to strengthen its air defenses.
De Wever made the announcement at a press conference in Brussels alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Anadolu Agency reported. He said Belgium’s deliveries had fallen behind schedule because its new US-made F-35 fighter jets arrived later than expected.
Belgium also discussed supplying more ammunition for Ukraine’s F-16s.
“We will deliver 10 this year,” De Wever said, explaining that delays in receiving Belgium’s F-35s had held up the transfer of its F-16s. The new aircraft are now beginning to arrive, allowing Belgium to move forward with deliveries to Ukraine.
Zelenskyy confirmed that Kyiv expects additional F-16s from Belgium by the end of the year and thanked Brussels for the agreement.
The announcement marks an increase from Belgium’s previously reported plan to send three F-16s to Ukraine by the end of 2026. The new figure would more than triple the number expected under that earlier commitment.
De Wever said Ukraine urgently needs operational fighter jets and described the F-16 as one of the few weapons capable of effectively countering Russian jet-powered drones.
The aircraft can also intercept cruise missiles and other aerial targets, while carrying out electronic warfare and combat missions. Ukraine received its first F-16s in 2024 after allies agreed to supply the aircraft and train Ukrainian pilots.
Zelenskyy and De Wever also discussed supplying additional ammunition for Ukraine’s F-16s, including 20 mm rounds produced by Belgian defense company FN Herstal.
The leaders also reportedly discussed Ukraine’s financial needs, though neither provided details on potential next steps. Belgium remains at the center of discussions over frozen Russian assets, as Brussels hosts Euroclear, which holds a large share of the immobilized funds.
A fire at Unit 1 of the Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Thermal Power Plant—located in Santa Cruz del Norte, in the western province of Mayabeque—was brought under control this morning. The incident took the unit offline and increased the projected impact on the National Electric Power System (SEN) during peak hours.
RELATED:
Cuba Denounces U.S. Oil Blockade and Lack of Progress in Talks
The Electric Union (UNE) reported that the fire began at 06:55 local time and affected the plant’s Unit 1. “Unit 1 of the Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Thermal Power Plant in East Havana is currently offline due to a fire that broke out in the unit,” the organization stated on its social media channels.
According to a report by journalist Lázaro Manuel Alonso, the fire was caused by an oil leak at the front of the rotor, which was detected by the operator on duty. The swift intervention of emergency responders and the implementation of safety protocols allowed the fire to be extinguished without any loss of life or injuries.
Following the fire, the area remains under preventive surveillance. Authorities indicated that Units 2 and 3 of the power plant are being prepared to resume operations, while the efforts of the workers and emergency teams who responded to the scene have been acknowledged.
Luego de extinguido el incendio se implementan los protocolos establecidos para el restablecimiento y la evaluación de los daños.
— CTE Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (@CteEGSerna) October 16, 2026
Muchas gracias a todos los que participaron en sofocarlo.#loqueNOSUNEcompromiso https://t.co/H03yZ34A77
The first text reads, “Once the fire was extinguished, established protocols for recovery and damage assessment were implemented. Many thanks to everyone who helped put it out.”
The second text reads, “Thanks to the urgent actions of the fire department—in coordination with the Electric Union and with the participation of workers, all directed by the provincial and municipal Defense Councils—the fire was successfully extinguished, with no impact on the remaining units.”
The loss of this unit has exacerbated the country’s power generation deficit. For the period of peak demand, the UNE anticipates an available capacity of only 740 megawatts (MW), against a peak demand of 2,900 MW.
In addition to the damaged unit, eight other thermal power units—out of the 16 that make up the country’s total generation capacity—remain out of service due to breakdowns or maintenance. Cuba is experiencing an energy crisis with social repercussions—manifested in prolonged daily blackouts—stemming from an obsolete electrical system and a decline in power generation capacity.
The National Electric System (SEN) is under strain as a result of the blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba for more than six decades, which prevents the country from acquiring spare parts.
Compounding this is the energy blockade imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump via an executive order in January, which threatens any country that trades fuel with the island.
🇨🇺 Cuba says U.S. economic pressure is worsening shortages of food, medicine, and other essential supplies as Washington continues to tighten sanctions and restrictions on the Caribbean island.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) September 16, 2026
Cuban authorities say the measures are disrupting foreign trade and worsening… pic.twitter.com/qrUDnUYmi9
VTM
Em comunicado, a PSP explica que a investigação teve origem na “denúncia apresentada” por um cidadão, que comunicou o desaparecimento do equipamento após o ter deixado inadvertidamente numa mesa da zona de restauração de um estabelecimento comercial da cidade de Chaves.
No âmbito das diligências de investigação desenvolvidas, os polícias identificaram um homem, de 69 anos, suspeito de se ter apropriado ilegitimamente do telemóvel, que entregou “voluntariamente o equipamento nas instalações policiais”, acrescentou a nota de imprensa.
O suspeito foi constituído arguido e sujeito a termo de identidade e residência. Após confirmação dos elementos identificativos e cumprimento das formalidades legais aplicáveis, o telemóvel foi restituído ao lesado.
Os factos foram comunicados à autoridade judiciária competente.
The post PSP recupera telemóvel e entrega-o ao proprietário appeared first on A Voz de Trás-os-Montes.
“The growth sucks.” That’s how Alex Karp, the CEO and co-founder of Palantir Technologies, described the company’s performance in Europe. He said this on August 3 to shareholders, while his colleagues defended an “incredible” quarter in the United States.
Follow The Money and its media partners presented Palantir with the findings of this investigation, along with 14 detailed questions. Palantir has not responded to any of them. Instead, the firm forwarded a statement from a spokesperson: “A serious debate is needed on how Europe safeguards its technological sovereignty. Technological sovereignty must ultimately be measured by who controls the data, the decisions and the mission: not just by the nationality of the software provider.” According to Palantir, control over data (and what is done with it) belongs to the customer.
The statement adds: “Since 2011, Palantir has been working with democratically-elected European governments and institutions to increase hospital capacity, accelerate cancer diagnoses, safely resettle refugees, combat organized crime, protect victims of domestic violence, and respond more quickly to floods and other emergencies.” It also notes that more than 20% of Palantir’s employees work in Europe and that the company helps European businesses compete and grow in various sectors, such as aerospace, manufacturing and life sciences. Palantir further states that it supports European governments in protecting their national security, including in Ukraine.
In a previous response to this same media consortium, Palantir denied accusations of its involvement in human rights violations.
Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. councilmember and the city's presumptive next mayor, has come out against pending legislation that would allow autonomous ride-share vehicles onto city streets, citing the technology's potential to eliminate the jobs of ride-share human drivers.
"DC is facing a jobs crisis. Rushing the legalization of autonomous vehicles is irresponsible given the anticipated AI-related job displacement and disruptions that put countless workers at risk," she said on X yesterday.
DC is facing a jobs crisis.
Rushing the legalization of autonomous vehicles is irresponsible given the anticipated AI-related job displacement and disruptions that put countless workers at risk.
— Janeese Lewis George (@Janeese4DC) October 15, 2026
In a follow-up post, she said that the D.C. Council should delay consideration of a pending bill that would allow Waymo, which is currently testing its technology with human safety operators on District streets, to offer autonomous rides to the public.
Ever since Lewis George won a commanding victory in D.C.'s Democratic mayoral primary earlier this year, pundits and wonks have been trying to read the tea leaves on how the Democratic Socialist will govern.
D.C.'s economy is currently in a rough spot. Unemployment is high. The housing market is down. Population growth is slowing.
Lewis George's comments about Waymo suggest the mayor has a deeply mistaken view about the effects and benefits of technological innovation. Contrary to her contention, Waymo legalization is unlikely to exacerbate a "jobs crisis" for at least three reasons.
The first reason she's wrong is that very few D.C. residents work full-time as ride-share drivers. On her Capital Commonsense Substack, Ashley Schapitl reports that, by Lewis George's own estimate, there are only 200 District residents who work full-time as ride-share drivers.
For comparison's sake, the District has a labor force of roughly 400,000 people. So even if Waymo displaced all human drivers in the District, it would be a statistical nonevent.
Few headlines, for instance, reported that D.C.'s labor force shrank by 1,000 people between May and June. Neither did many outlets report that the labor force grew by roughly 600 people between July and August.
Yet here the mayor is talking about a "jobs crisis" over what would be an even smaller change in the number of employed workers in the city.
The second reason not to fear an exacerbated "jobs crisis" as a result of Waymo legalization is that autonomous vehicles (A.V.s) will not completely replace human rideshare drivers in the foreseeable future.
In the cities where Waymo has been active for years, A.V.s are still responsible for a minority of rideshare rides.
That's the case in Phoenix, where Waymo has been offering autonomous commercial service since 2020. In an article from April, Business Insider cites one study that put Waymo's market share at 16 percent of ride-share rides.
In other words, 84 percent of ride-share rides are still being performed by humans a full six years after A.V.s came onto the scene.
That isn't to say the impacts of A.V.s are necessarily positive for human drivers' earnings.
Another study by Gridwise from August 2025 found that A.V.s appeared to be marginally reducing drivers' hourly pay and number of trips per hour. That's evidence of the market for rides becoming more competitive, but it's not, as of yet, evidence of a job apocalypse.
Network design matters too. In places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Waymo is a standalone competitor to traditional ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft. In Austin and Phoenix, Waymo partners with Uber to offer rides on hybrid human-and-A.V. networks.
A report by EnoTrans, funded by a grant from Lyft, found that the later cities' hybrid networks actually increased human drivers' trips per hour. Their pay-per-hour fell, albeit less steeply than in cities without hybrid networks.
All of that is to say that while Waymo, as a competitor to human-operated ride-share services, shouldn't be expected to have a positive impact on drivers' earnings. It shouldn't be expected to have a catastrophic impact on them either.
The third and final reason that Lewis George is wrong to think that Waymo will worsen a coming "jobs crisis" is that Waymo's employment impacts are not limited to its effect on competing human drivers.
If Waymo earns any market share at all, it'll be because it's offering some travelers a better transportation option than the ones that currently exist. Increased ease of travel within the city would be expected to raise employment levels, not lower them.
If Waymo makes it easier or cheaper for people to get from home to the office or from the office to their kids' school, they might be more willing to live in D.C. over Arlington or Silver Spring. If it's more convenient to get to the movies or dinner, residents will be more willing to patronize local businesses.
None of that even touches on the economic and human benefits of Waymo's likely positive impact on road safety.
The direct effects of Waymo on drivers' employment must be weighed against all the other economic activity that autonomous vehicles will facilitate.
In the long run, the economic effects of autonomous vehicles may well be revolutionary. In the foreseeable future, they'll make the market for for-hire rides slightly more competitive.
A reasonable assumption then is that Waymo will have a modest, but positive, impact on overall economic activity and employment in the District, even if it has a modest, but negative, impact on the small number of full-time ride-share drivers who live here.
If the new mayor can't even tolerate that level of economic disruption, that does not portend good things for D.C.'s economy under a Lewis George administration.
The post Presumptive D.C. Mayor Janeese Lewis George Demands Halt to Waymo Legalization To Protect Drivers' Jobs appeared first on Reason Magazine.
By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | October 15, 2026
Espionage novels portray the spy as a person in a trench coat carrying stolen documents and disappearing into a dark alley. Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, certainly fit that picture. A Navy analyst who stole American secrets including the complete ten-volume manual of the National Security Agency exposing how the US gathers its signal intelligence and the names of thousands of foreign individuals who worked for US spy agencies. Intelligence officials believe Israel shared stolen documents with the Soviet Union. According to several intelligence assessments, Pollard was one of the most damaging spies in US history.
Pollard received a life sentence in 1987 and was released in 2015. At first, Israel claimed he was a rogue, apologised and did not admit he had been its agent until 1998. In 2007, Israel named a square in Jerusalem after him, honouring him for his services.
Pollard was neither the first nor the last Israeli asset. Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon analyst, pleaded guilty in 2005 to passing classified information to an Israeli embassy official and two AIPAC staffers. Ben-Ami Kadish, a former Army engineer, pleaded guilty in 2008 to passing secret documents to an Israeli consulate official, and served no prison time. Stewart Nozette from NASA was charged with attempted espionage following an FBI sting operation. In 1970, Richard Perle was caught in an FBI wiretap discussing classified information with an Israeli embassy official.
In 2001, the same Perle chaired the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, while two other Israel-firsters, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz held senior posts in the same building. Franklin had worked in Feith’s policy office when he was indicted for espionage. In 1996, a study group led by Perle, and Feith, prepared a policy paper for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu titled “A Clean Break.” It urged Israel to abandon the Oslo Accords and the peace process with the Palestinians, and it proposed removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as part of a broader Israeli strategy to reshape the region. Five years later, as leaders in the Pentagon, they delivered America’s first made-for-Israel war in Iraq.
The above is in no way intended to insinuate or allege that anyone, least of all these Zionist Americans, has dual loyalties. No. It is so profound, there is only one way to describe it: Israel-first loyalty.
Fast forward to 2026. David Milstein, stepson of Israeli propagandist Mark Levin and a senior aide to Ambassador Mike Huckabee, effectively the ambassador’s chief of staff. An unabashed Israel-first American Zionist, Milstein oversees the embassy’s West Bank and Gaza portfolio, placing the fox in charge of the henhouse. According to The New York Times, citing a dozen people who have worked with him, Milstein has repeatedly quashed or rewritten embassy reports to the U.S. State Department to favour Netanyahu’s government.
When the Israeli government accelerated the approval of building more Jewish-only colonies in occupied West Bank, embassy staff drafted an urgent memo warning that the move might cross President Trump’s own red line against annexation. According to The Times, the memo never left Jerusalem.
In response to the surge in attacks by Israeli Jewish mobs on Palestinian homes and farms, embassy staff prepared a report documenting Israel’s failure to rein in violence by Zionist youth. Milstein rewrote it and sent an embassy cable to Washington titled “Government Cracks Down on Escalating West Bank Violence.” When US diplomats pointed out that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s distribution sites were chaotic and deadly, Milstein concluded the operation was a success.
Thirty members of Congress, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen, asked what had become of the investigations into the killings of nine Palestinian Americans by Israeli Jewish mobs and soldiers. Embassy staff compiled a report showing little progress and no charges. According to The Times, the report was set aside in favor of a letter saying Israel was handling the cases properly.
Cable traffic from the section covering Palestinian affairs fell from several a week to a few a month, because American embassy staff feared their work would be blocked, rewritten or impact their diplomatic career. Milstein would question embassy staff if they were “pro-Israel” or “pro-Hamas,” not if they were loyal Americans. A diplomatic mission that polices loyalty with questions like that ceases to function as an American embassy.
I once shared a lunch table with an American ambassador serving abroad. He recounted how, during George Shultz’s tenure as Secretary of State, Shultz would meet newly appointed ambassadors, point to a world map in his office, and ask the appointee to identify their country. Most would point to the country where they had been assigned. Shultz would correct them: “No, your country is the United States. Your duty is to serve your own country’s interests, not those of the country to which you are assigned.”
Ambassador Huckabee and Milstein either never heard that lesson, or serving Israel was their priority.
Rather than representing American interests in Jerusalem, the embassy operates as Israel’s envoy within the US government. Turning the US embassy into a Zionist mission run by the evangelical church, and an indoctrinated Zionist whose stepfather is referred to as “Tel Aviv Levin.”
Here again, no one is accusing Huckabee or Milstein of being foreign agents. Frankly, Israel does not need them to be. It need not recruit them or pay them like Pollard. Officials ideologically devoted to Israel can do the same work from within the U.S. government, under legitimate titles and without risking arrest.
No country receives more American financial and military aid than Israel. Yet US counterintelligence assessments have identified Israel as one of the most aggressive intelligence-gathering threats to the American homeland. Jonathan Pollard and others may have been the quintessential trench-coat spies. But the more dangerous risk is not someone stealing classified files; it is Americans whose loyalty to Israel overrides their duty to the U.S., operating in the halls of the White House and the Pentagon with one focus: serve Israel.
Consider David Frum, who coined President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” phrase, helping lay the rhetorical roadmap for America’s longest foreign war.
Frum also wrote speeches for Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, making Israel’s case before the international body. The same writer, serving an Israel-first agenda from two different platforms: first helping sell America a war in the Middle East, then making Israel’s case before the world.
In the 21st century, with Zionist control of mainstream corporate media, and these implants inside America’s halls of power, Israel does not require trench coats, or stolen documents. It operates through officials who occupy positions of power deciding what American policymakers read by shaping diplomatic reporting, suppressing information and steering American decisions in ways that advances Israel’s strategic interests over America’s own. And whenever Israel’s interests and Washington’s information needs diverge, the information bends, delivered in plain sight, through official channels, under official titles, and on the American taxpayer’s payroll.
Os podcasts produzidos em Portugal auditados pelo ranking Pod_Scope, serviço da Marktest para a medição técnica, auditada e independente, registaram cerca de 10,2 milhões de downloads no mês de setembro, uma recuperação de 41,5% face aos 7,21 milhões registados no mês de agosto. O valor representa mesmo assim o segundo registo mais baixo do ano.
A liderança dos publishers continua nas mãos do grupo Impresa, que registou 3,38 milhões de downloads mensais, cerca de 846 mil downloads semanais e 485 mil listeners semanais.
Logo a seguir, o Observador mantém-se no segundo lugar, com 2,53 milhões de downloads mensais. Já o Grupo Renascença regista 2,18 milhões, não conseguindo recuperar o segundo lugar perdido em agosto. A Bauer Media mantém-se no quarto lugar, com 1,42 milhões de downloads e a RTP no quinto lugar, com 687 mil. Esta ordenação mantém-se tanto nos downloads semanais como nos listeners semanais.
Analisando por marcas, o Observador mantém-se na liderança, obtida em agosto, com 2,53 milhões de downloads mensais. A Renascença recupera, ultrapassando o Expresso, mas não o suficiente para voltar ao lugar cimeiro de julho. Em setembro, a marca do Grupo Renascença Multimédia alcançou 2,08 milhões de downloads e a marca da Impresa registou cerca de 1,55 milhões.
A Rádio Comercial mantém-se no quarto lugar, com quase 1,3 milhões de downloads. A SIC Notícias fecha o top cinco com cerca de 1,27 milhões de downloads.
No universo de 25 marcas analisadas, 14 viram os seus números mensais aumentar em setembro, 10 desceram e uma ficou igual, a Cidade FM, com exatamente 856 downloads nos dois meses. Em agosto tinham sido 22 marcas em queda. A RTP Notícias registou um crescimento de 131,8% — de 5.105 downloads para 11.834 downloads. Tal permitiu à marca subir de 16.º para 13.º, alcançando a maior subida de posições do mês.
O “top 3” – Observador, Renascença e Expresso – continua a reunir a maioria da quota de mercado, representando 60,46% dos downloads entre as marcas analisadas.
No que toca aos listeners semanais – dispositivos/apps conectados à internet que efetuaram downloads de podcasts entre 31 de agosto e 27 de setembro –, o Observador mantém a liderança, com 288 mil. O Expresso mantém-se no segundo lugar — com 250 mil — e a Renascença recupera para o terceiro lugar — com 218 mil –, não conseguindo ainda voltar ao lugar cimeiro que ocupava em julho. A SIC Notícias cai assim do terceiro para a quarta posição — com 208 mil — e a SIC mantém o quinto lugar, com 109 mil.
No mês anterior, recorde-se, o pódio era ocupado por Observador, Expresso e SIC Notícias, por esta ordem.
Nos formatos individuais, o “Extremamente Desagradável”, da Rádio Renascença, manteve a liderança com o maior número de downloads mensais — quase 1,6 milhões, tendo sido lançados 15 episódios. “O Homem que Mordeu o Cão” – Rádio Comercial – mantém-se no segundo lugar, com 865 mil downloads mensais e novos 19 episódios. O “Expresso da Manhã” (Expresso) também mantém o terceiro lugar, com 278 mil e 24 novos episódios, face aos 305 mil registados e 25 novos episódios em agosto.
Em conjunto, estes três títulos representaram 26,84% de todo o consumo deste formato nos grupos auditados.
Mais de metade das publicações publicitárias analisadas pela #Pub nas redes sociais não estava corretamente identificada. Para combater a falta de transparência no marketing de influência, o projeto sem fins lucrativos lançou uma plataforma que recorre à inteligência artificial (IA) para detetar potenciais infrações no Instagram e no TikTok, alertar influenciadores e facilitar denúncias por parte dos consumidores.
A ferramenta monitoriza diariamente uma amostra aleatória de mais de mil perfis de influenciadores portugueses e classifica as publicações como potencialmente publicitárias, devidamente identificadas ou de natureza orgânica, avança a plataforma. Os primeiros resultados, relativos a 2.113 publicações de 780 influenciadores, apontam para uma taxa de 52,7% de publicidade não corretamente identificada, segundo os dados da #Pub, sustentados por 484 votações de utilizadores.
Nesta fase inicial, foram alertados 147 perfis para possíveis incumprimentos e terão sido apresentadas 40 denúncias à Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE).
A plataforma permite consultar os conteúdos analisados, contestar as classificações, contactar diretamente os influenciadores e denunciar situações potencialmente irregulares. Mantém também um histórico dos perfis monitorizados, que poderá ajudar as marcas a avaliar as práticas de identificação publicitária dos criadores de conteúdos com quem colaboram.
“O objetivo da plataforma é diminuir o número de publicações publicitárias não identificadas nas redes sociais através do awareness criado pelos avisos aos perfis de influencers e pela facilidade de denúncia para os consumidores”, explica citado em comunicado Diogo Abrantes da Silva, fundador da #Pub – Hashtag Pub e embaixador do Pacto Climático Europeu.
O responsável considera que, apesar da maturação do mercado português de marketing de influência, persistem problemas na identificação dos conteúdos comerciais. “A publicidade não identificada é imoral para os consumidores”, afirma, defendendo que as relações de proximidade estabelecidas entre influenciadores e seguidores podem dificultar a distinção entre recomendações genuínas e mensagens publicitárias.
A monitorização abrange influenciadores que trabalham em Portugal e têm mais de 30 mil seguidores, sendo possível sugerir novos perfis para análise. Além da plataforma, a #Pub publica diariamente na sua conta de Instagram alertas dirigidos a influenciadores e marcas sobre possíveis situações de incumprimento.
O projeto disponibiliza ainda o código-fonte em regime open source, permitindo a sua utilização e adaptação por terceiros.
Trump tore up the nuclear deal in 2018. Tehran kept it alive for another year, and that was not weakness. It was strategy.
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | October 16, 2026
I’ve had this article sitting in storage waiting for the right moment to publish it. Tonight, Mario Nawfal hosted a debate on Iran that featured Robert Barnes and Matt Tardio. Matt put out so much disinformation and falsities that I believe now is the time to set the record straight about what happened to the JCPOA. I was tempted to attach the prefix, “RE” to Matt’s last name but decided not to go down the ad hominem path. Instead, let’s just deal with the facts.
On May 8, 2018, Donald Trump announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement that Iran had signed with the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China three years earlier. He reimposed every sanction the deal had lifted and then piled on more under a policy he called “maximum pressure.” Iran had not violated the agreement. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which had inspectors at every Iranian nuclear site, had certified again and again that Iran was keeping its side of the bargain.
Most people in Washington expected Tehran to respond in kind: throw out the inspectors, restart the centrifuges and race for the bomb. Some in the administration hoped it would, because that would have justified the next step. Iran did the opposite. For a full year it continued to abide by every limit in the agreement, keeping its enrichment at 3.67%, its stockpile under 300 kilograms and its doors open to the IAEA. Understanding why tells you a great deal about how Iran’s leaders actually think, and it undercuts the caricature of a reckless regime that dominates American commentary.
It put the United States in the wrong
The first reason was legitimacy. By staying in the deal, Iran turned the dispute from “Iran versus the world” into “the United States versus everyone else.” Washington, not Tehran, was the party that had broken an agreement endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. Europe, Russia and China all said so. For the first time in decades Iran held the diplomatic high ground, and its leaders understood that giving it up would reunite the coalition that had sanctioned them before 2015.
That calculation paid off in a way few predicted. In August 2020 the Trump administration tried to invoke the deal’s “snapback” clause to restore all UN sanctions on Iran. Thirteen of the fifteen members of the Security Council rejected the move, on the grounds that the United States had left the agreement and could not use its provisions. Had Iran walked out in 2018, the snapback would have been automatic and unanimous. Patience bought Iran protection at the United Nations.
It gave Europe a chance to deliver
The second reason was economic hope. The deal’s value to Iran was sanctions relief, and the Europeans promised to preserve some of it. They created a special trade channel, INSTEX, designed to let European companies do business with Iran without exposure to American sanctions. Tehran gave Europe time to make it work. It never did. INSTEX completed its first transaction, a shipment of medical supplies, only in March 2020, and European companies fled Iran rather than risk being cut off from the American market and the dollar. Iran’s oil exports collapsed from about 2.5 million barrels a day to a few hundred thousand. But Iran’s leaders had to test the European promise before they could declare it worthless, and they did.
It denied Washington and Israel a pretext
The third reason was security. Iran’s leaders knew that any visible move toward a bomb would be used to justify military strikes. Hawks in Washington and Jerusalem had argued for years that the deal only delayed the inevitable; an Iranian walkout would have proved their case. By staying inside the agreement, with inspectors on the ground, Iran made it far harder to sell a war. The IAEA’s reports were Iran’s best defense.
This was consistent with the position Iran’s leadership has held publicly for two decades. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a religious ruling forbidding nuclear weapons, and Iran remained a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty throughout. Whatever one thinks of the sincerity of that position, Iran’s conduct after May 2018 matched it.
It bet on outlasting Trump
The fourth reason was time. Iran’s leaders had watched American politics closely, and they knew presidents come and go. The deal had been negotiated by one administration and abandoned by the next; it could be restored by a third. Staying in the agreement kept that door open. President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif had staked their political careers on the deal, and they argued that Iran should wait out Trump rather than burn the bridge. Khamenei, who had always been skeptical of American promises, allowed them to make that case. It was a wager that the United States would return to its word.
Why the patience ran out
Iran’s patience was not unlimited, and it was never unconditional. On May 8, 2019, exactly one year after Trump’s announcement, Rouhani said Iran would begin to scale back its commitments in stages. Iran invoked paragraph 36 of the deal itself, which allows a party to stop performing its obligations if another party is in significant non-compliance. Each step was announced in advance, carried out under IAEA observation and described as reversible the moment the United States returned and lifted sanctions. In July 2019 Iran exceeded the stockpile limit and enriched to 4.5%. In November it resumed enrichment at Fordow.
Then came the events that hardened Tehran. The United States killed General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was assassinated in November 2020. The Natanz enrichment plant was sabotaged in April 2021. Each attack was answered with another step: 20% enrichment, the end of expanded inspections, and finally 60%. The Biden administration had a chance to restore the deal in Vienna in 2021 and 2022, and those talks collapsed too.
Sixty percent as leverage
The most alarming of Iran’s steps, the decision in April 2021 to enrich uranium to 60%, is usually cited as proof that Tehran was racing for a bomb. Look at the timing and the terms and it reads very differently. Talks to restore the deal opened in Vienna on April 6, 2021. Five days later the enrichment hall at Natanz was sabotaged in an attack widely attributed to Israel. Iran announced 60% enrichment two days after that.
The move was a message aimed at the negotiating table. Iran was telling the remaining parties, and the United States, that every month they failed to honor their commitments would cost them, and that the cost would rise. Iran’s government spokesman, Ali Rabiei, said publicly on April 20 that the step “can quickly be reversed” if the other parties returned to their obligations, and that enrichment would then go back to the level set in the 2015 accord. The parliament’s law of December 2020, which ordered higher enrichment and fewer inspections, was written the same way: it tied every escalation to the absence of sanctions relief.
That is leverage, not a breakout. Iran had watched Europe fail to deliver for three years and the United States refuse to return without new concessions. Staying at 3.67% had won it praise and nothing else. Raising the stakes was the only tool it had left to make the other signatories take their own commitments seriously. Iran enriched to 60% so that it would have something to give back.
What the critics will say
Critics make three arguments that challenge my thesis. The first is that Iran was provoking the United States all along through its missile program and its support for allies across the region. But neither was covered by the JCPOA. The deal was deliberately limited to the nuclear program because that was the only issue on which agreement was possible. Holding Iran responsible for breaking terms that were never in the agreement is not a fair test.
The second is that 60% enrichment has no civilian purpose. That is largely true, and it is the point. A bargaining chip has to be valuable to the other side, and 60% was valuable precisely because it worried Washington, Europe and Israel. Iran never enriched to 90%, never left the Non-Proliferation Treaty and never expelled inspectors during this period.
The third is that in early 2023 the IAEA found uranium particles enriched to 83.7% at Fordow. Iran said they were the result of unintended fluctuations in the enrichment process, and the agency did not report any stockpile at that level. Particles are not a stockpile, and a stockpile is not a weapon. Iran’s accumulated 60% material did grow, to about 87.5 kilograms by that report and far more later, and that growth was dangerous. But it was the predictable price of a policy of pressure that gave Iran no reason to stop.
The lesson
The record shows a government that responded to the breach of an international agreement with restraint, then with measured and reversible pressure, and only escalated after its economy had been strangled and its officers and scientists killed. That is not the behavior of a regime determined to build a bomb at the first opportunity. It is the behavior of a government that wanted the deal to survive and concluded, slowly, that the United States would not let it.
There is a lesson here for Washington. When the United States walked away from an agreement that was working, it did not get a better deal. It got an Iran with near-weapons-grade uranium, fewer inspectors and every reason to doubt American promises. Iran kept the JCPOA alive for a year after Trump abandoned it. The question we should be asking is not why Iran eventually stepped back, but why the United States walked away from a deal that was keeping Iran a year away from a bomb.
Login